Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

War Memorials


Ivor Lee

Recommended Posts

Like many other of the Pals one of my research projects is my local war memorial.

Research suggests a number of local men whose names do not appear on the memorial.

My initial reaction was to ask the local council to add their names.

But the thought has crossed my mind what if some 80 years ago relatives did not want the name on the memorial? I know of at least one occasion when this occured.

Of course, today we have little chance of finding out if this was the case.

So the question arises should we ask for names to be added?

I will be interested to hear your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ivor:

You raise an interesting question. My gut reaction is memorials should remain as they were originally built and the plaques shouldn't be changed to reflect modern conditions.

In another thread (War memorials, Duplication) Terry Denham wrote: "Each locality had its own rules as to who was added to their local memorial. These are not 'official' memorials in the sense that they were under any sort of national control. They were spontanious manifestations of a community's feelings of remembrance." I think Terry's quotation is significant in answering your question as well. Adding names to a memorial could very well be changing a community's originally intentions.

Garth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More recently moves were made to get Thomas Highgate's name put on to the memorial in/near Shoreham, and it did cause a stink the local community wanted it but I believe the Legion objected, (i could be a bit off beam there with th agency, but there was a stink and in the end it was refused).

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ivor

As you suggest, those of us who are modern day researchers are discovering folk not commemorated. There are many reasons why this might be the case, but probably the most likely might be family preference/indifference at the time. I have one chap not commemorated who seems to have been single with no family (and therefore presumably no-one to remember him).

It may be that our modern days researches turn up someone and we believe there is a connection with the locality but, at the time, family had moved away and the soldier may be commemorated elsewhere. Bit like the reverse of the guys who are commemorated but we can't find out anything about them.

In all such cases, I believe it improper for us to try to have them added.

Staff Sgt Benjamin Hartley (below), is not commemorated on the memorial near where he lived (not one of the ones I'm researching). I don't know why this is the case. There was no newspaper report of his death, either. I don't know the reason for this, but I'm the only member of family (he was my great uncle) now likely to care about this and I want him listed. The local council has agreed in principle.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to reinforce Terry Denham's post. Last year, whilst researching my family history I landed at Martley in Worcestershire. Whilst noting the names on the churchyard war memorial, a very kind gentleman approached me and explained that one of the inscribed names had not died in WW1, but had died some years after the war, of complications from wounds received. The local war memorial committee had decided to include his name however, taking the view that he was just as much a victim of the war as those who had been killed in action.

With regards to multiple recordings on war memorials, they are not so unusual, as forum members have already commented upon . The UK population was more mobile than many people suspect, during and before the war. In my home town of Coventry, a leading engineering centre before the war, it is quite easy to find industrial workers on namedon local memorials as well as in the their places of origin, simply because they moved to areas where work was available.

In the same vein, I have also found men who have been born in one parish in the city and then in adulthood, moved to another part of the city, resulting in their names appearing on at least two memorials within a few miles of each other. In one extreme case, I have found an officer who was a member of a prominent watch making firm commemorated on four local memorials. One is a large family memorial, one on a clock, which still exists in the Council House, and, in addition, on two other public clocks around the city, which appear to have been destroyed by WW2 air raids.

I guess that is what makes this particular subject so fascinating.

Terry Reeves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at it long & hard, whilst the researcher in me wants everyone missed off a local memorial to be added, this has to be weighed up against other factors. The moral factor - is it right to add the name of a man to a memorial when it was not the wishes of his next of kin at the time the memorial was erected. The financial factor - how much would this cost & are the authorities/organisations responsible for the maintenence in a position to afford the cost. Judging by the poor state of a number of memorials I have conducted research on I bet many can't afford the cost. The responsibility factor - I have heard of cases when no single authority or organisation take responsibility for maintenence - In which case you're scuppered before you start.

The best comment I can make then is at least by me researching the lives of those not listed on the memorials near, they have not been forgotton by one person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been researching the names on memorials in my local community for the last few years.

I always wonder where does one begin and one end with a question like this? Where do you draw the line between making a case for a name to be added and equally for one to be removed?

Whilst I have discovered individuals who in all probability should be included on a specific memorial I always take the view that we should let the decisions taken by the various memorial committees, etc at the time be final and conclusive in this respect.

Regards

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in Leatherhead , we have 4 Taylor sons on our war memorial . A fifth who died in uniform at home has been excluded perhaps by accident or perhaps because he never served abroad. He has an official CWGC gravestone in our church yard. Our local memorial has several empty and unused tablets and I think that he should be added now to belatedly join his brothers. Am I wrong to try to second guess the local community in the 20's or have we the right as successors living in our local area to make this adjustment ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ianw

I don't know how strongly the rest of the forum feel but like I advised in my previous posting I am torn by this question. Whilst I plump for not becoming involved in having names added, I think it must be a personel decision & each decision to being involved in such an issue should be respected. I would certainly not criticise someone for taking the decision. It's just a commitment I feel personally unable to take.

Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some interesting points being raised here. With regard to who should be named on memorials some eighty years on, I cannot provide an answer, simply because, at least in my own area, the critieria for inclusion is not known. In this case I guess it is a matter for individuals to press the case.

This raises some practical considerations however. Again, in my own area, there are some memorials which are in public spaces but were erected by local firms, funded by donations from the company and their employees. The local newspapers of the time often record the presence of the Mayor at the comemmoration servicewho accepted the memorial on behalf of the council but the company's now no longer exist. The "Friends of War Memorials" web site give some advice on the upkeep of such memorials, the onus which appears to fall on local authorities under an Act of Parliament, but not on the addition of names.

As many forum members will know, there are many memorial boards, scrolls and plaques which are hidden behind closed doors as it were, in pubs clubs and factories ect. which suffer from the same problem.

There are a number of ways, at local level, to try and rectify this problem. Provide evidence for the inclusion. Try and get the details pubiished in your local newspaper and sometimes you may get relatives come forward to support your case. Timing is important. I was advised by the features editor of my local paper some years ago that the press love anniversaries. Get your letter into the local paper a month or so before November 11th for instance to try and promote public interest. If you have a good story to tell you may find that you will get some support. There are no guarantees of course.

Terry Reeves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my great-uncles, who served in the Royal Navy in both Wars, is not included on his town's war memorial because he was killed in a motorbike accident whilst ashore in Italy in 1945, rather than dying as a direct result of enemy action. However, of course if it wasn't for the war and his serving his country, he wouldn't have been there and died at that time and place, so from my point of view it seems a rather petty decision not to include him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for a fascinating set of replies to my original question.

As has been said it does look as if that there is no clear answer to the problem.

I suppose each one of us will have to act as we feel appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Munce

I agree with your sentiments concerning your great uncle. Was he actually on Royal Navy duty when the accident happened? Or was he off duty? That might have made a difference to the decision?

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Rutland, Ryhall has had a Pte C E Porter who died of wounds on the 9th of December 1919 and is buried in the Village cemetery but not named on the Memorial in the church. This last year his name has been added on a plaque below the Memorial in the Church, I have also found (thanks to Jim from devon) a Lilian Plant Women's RAF , died 8/12/18 who is buried at Ryhall but is also not on the Village War Memorial.

The same again at Braunston in Rutland there is a Gladys Walter WRAF 11/11/18 , buried in the Church cemetery and again is not named on the War memorials inside and out side the Church.

I believe that Stretton has added a plaque with two names on it below the War Memorial in the Church. May be this is the way forward with Memorials in churches, add the name on a plaque below the War Memorial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier in this thread Mordac quoted a comment I made in another thread about which I am perfectly happy. However, I would not like my comment to stop anyone adding qualifying names to their memorials.

I am actually in favour of this. Last year I had eight new names added to my village memorial.

I tend to follow CWGC 's rule which says that they must commemorate every casualty. Their charter does not permit them to omit anyone - even if the n-o-k so wish. Everyone deserves to be publicly remembered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier in this thread Mordac quoted a comment I made in another thread about which I am perfectly happy. However, I would not like my comment to stop anyone adding qualifying names to their memorials.

Hi Terry:

I apologize if my quoting you has caused any misunderstanding pertaining to your position on adding names to memorials. It wasn't my intention to imply that you disagree with this practice.

I felt you made a very valid point on the intentions of memorial committees and communities that constructed the original war memorials. The point I was trying to make is, while using your quote from another thread, we really don't know what the intentions of the these people were. I just don't think it's appropriate to alter a memorial or plaque.

Regards,

Garth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not my country but I completely agree with Terry. I do not think relatives or anyone should be able to prevent a town or country from commemorating a man. They had no such power over the memorials in F & F unless I am very badly mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is driving me insane. After stating that I felt there was a moral dilemma in going against the wishes of next of kin who wanted no commemoration, Terry's comment that everybody deserves to be publically remembered has hit me like a brick on the back of the head. Terry, the more I think about it the more I feel you are abolutely right. Is there not also a moral obligation to remember everyone who died in the service of their country. This is such a double edged sword - Anyone have any ideas on how to satisfy both issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree that Terry's comments make a very good point. Everyone does deserve public recognition. It has made me think about my own attitude.

In this day of the computer we already have a public memorial for every casualty in the CWGC site. A mention of a man's name in a book or or a web site is also, in my view, public recognition. So my logic says that it is right to add a name to a War Memorial.

Thanks Terry, you have helped me solve my personal dilemma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CWGC have had to face this problem in the past. Relatives have asked that their son/husband be left off one of the official CWGC memorials to the missing.

However, their Charter does not permit them to do this. Everyone must be commemorated by name (if that name is known - unfortunately there are a few thousand African and Egyptian followers who are not known by name and they only have general memorials).

We usually ascribe this request by nok to a feeling of disgust with the war and the taking of their loved one by the state. However, we do not know if, on certain occasions, the intent may have been malicious. It is possible that the people involved could not stand the sight of each other! (not a common problem, I agree, but possible).

And, more importantly, we will never know what the wishes of the casualties themselves would have been.

I firmly believe that everyone deserves recognition and nobody else can decide otherwise.

On the point of commemorating everyone who died for their country, my personal view is that CWGC's Charter should have been extended in WW2 to cover the civilians of WW1 when it was amended to include civilians from the second conflict. Also, I see no reason why it still should not be extended to cover post 1947 military casualties as well. Still that is unlikely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had intended to stay out of this one!

Everyone does deserve recognition, and the CWGC Charter provides for that. Apart from mistakes, insufficient information, etc. all Great War casualties are commemorated on a memorial to the missing, or a headstone.

If the family wanted no further recognition (ie local war memorial), then that was their right. So their wishes should now be respected, and should only be changed by descendants.

I fully realise that if some 20 names are not commemorated on a war memorial and qualify for commemoration, then perhaps only one will fall into the category of "no further recognition". But unless it can be proved beyond doubt that this is not the case, the status quo should pertain.

I do not have a problem if an author investigating the war dead from an area includes and researches those names, and susequently publishes it on net or in a book. That is history. A memorial is something else.

But to believe that you know what the wishes of the relatives were 80-odd years ago cannot be realistic.

Each one is commemorated by the CWGC - their names can also be seen on a database. But to add names to a local war memorial without being fully aware of the reason why they were left off is not supportable.

I believe that all that is left is for us to regret that those responsible for compiling the list of names for their war memorial should have been more diligent.

If it had happened to one of my sons, then I would have wanted him commemorated. But I'm equlaly sure that if I did not want him commemorated for whatever reason, I would expect my wishes to be respected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I entirely support Richards comments. A local war memorial is a piece of history, and as such is a comment of life at that time, and if that piece of history is to be rewritten, then I feel it should be done in modern form, and not by changing what was thought appropriate generations back - and to add names to memorials in churches may be treading even more sticky ground.

When I stood at our local memorial last November, I had to reflect on what was actually being remembered. Those present may have been remembering 'the war', they may have been thinking about sacrifice, the futility of it all, but what they could not remember was what those men were like, where they lived, worked, played and died - even relatives of the dead no longer know much about them. With one or two exceptions those names are now, to the people who read them, exactly that, just names, and to add another will in years to come be just that again - a name carved in stone. If we are to honour our local men then I believe their stories must be written - as many of them as possible, not only those who gave their lives, the brave lived as well as died.

The men who died are commemorated by the CWGC, and if any have been forgotten, for whatever reason, then every effort should be made to rectify that. But at local level let us tell the community how their men came to give their lives for their country, and tell it in a way that will be enduring for future generations.

Regards - Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been away in France/Flanders so I missed the development of this most interesting thread.

Some contributors have already hinted at what I believe, which is that as well as being a physical mark of Remembrance, a local memorial is also a document, a written record, and the people who "wrote" it were those who were there at the time, making the decisions about what it should or should not say.

If we read any other written record, such as a book, and that book contains implied opinions with which we disagree, or if it misses out points which we should have put in, we wouldn't dream of re-publishing the book, missing out the bits we didn't like and adding words, lines or paragraphs which we think the author should have included.

The correct approach would be to publish our own commentary on the book or article, pointing out inaccuracies and putting forward the points which we thought should also have been made.

If this is the right approach, then we should apply it to war memorials, and our additions should be separate and explained. The idea of an additional plaque attached on or near to the memorial is a good one. By all means let's commemorate everyone, but I'd go for a physical addition, rather than a physical alteration, something like, "The following men of this village also lost their lives in the war but for reasons which cannot be determined their names were not included on the memorial when it was made."

That's my two penn'orth, anyway.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...